Queen Camilla?

Do we give a toss? Like hell, i couldnt care less, the tax fiddling scum.
Martin the "subject"
PS is that the woman they call Camilla park N ride

What is his fascination with loose women?

G

I would like to see the Royals dumped personally, but I can't understand why people object to the marriage. They are just people who want to get married after divorce for Chrissakes!! What the hell is the problem, and what the hell has it got to do with anyone else? The bloody church won't even recognise their marriage!! They should be treated just like everyone else, which is my belief anyway in all matters.
Looks like Charles' privilaged position has bitten him on the arse. To be fair, he never asked to be born a royal.
Mrs will not be Queen but Consort, whatever that is.
Anyway, why shouldn't she be Queen? Why not her but someone else? I can't see the difference. They are all chinless parasites.

Personally I would be happy to see them married - I do not unnderstand what the fuss is all about. Times have changed and they should be allowed to move with the times.

As for the debate about the Royals that is entirely a different topic.

Mike

We should congratulate them on moving to the "pre-divorce" status

Oh who cares? Except to say that I’d hate to see such an ungoldy troglodyte become Queen. It's a funny old world.

As for Charles, we have to bear in mind that this is a man who says he wishes he was a tampon; enough said.

EW

Personally,
The only thing I care about regarding any of the so called royals, is that I have to pay to keep them, and personally would prefer that If we are unable to get rid of them ,we don't encourage any more of them.As a family over the decades they all have had the benefit of probably the best education available to mankind but they still only manage to breed half wits.If we have to keep a throwback to an age when we were all running around in animal skins and living in caves,let those that want to keep them, pay for them!
oldie

They should be free to marry, like all sentient human beings.

However I do note that they didn't pay for my recent wedding. Whereas I probably spent about an hour of my working taxes to contribute to this pomp & circumstance...

If he actually pays for it out of his own salary, then he would command a huge amount of respect from the public.

Andrew

Does anyone have the figures of how much we each have to pay each year for the royal family?

Regards
Steve M

Reading into the story, the wedding seems a lot less extravagant. Which is good.

Andrew

On a personal level, then yes, they should marry, and best of luck to 'em.

On a political level, marriage could provide enough banana skins to bring the downfall of the "Lucky Sperm Club" one step closer. News that Camilla might take the title "Princess of Wales" is of course, very encouraging.

I just hope he doesn't have this one killed.

Prince of Sales Cashes in at
Taxpayers' Expense
31-01-2005


Republic questions why Prince Charles is allowed to make vast and increasing profits on the back of royal tax breaks. Despite monarchist cries that Charles receives nothing from the Civil List it is clear that he still costs the taxpayer dearly.

Reports this weekend exposed the indefensible arrangement which allows Prince Charles to get rich thanks to his private enterprise, the Duchy of Cornwall, receiving special privileges from the Treasury. The Duchy, given to the prince on his 21st birthday, operates as a shrewd landowner and retail business. But, unlike businesses that are painstakingly built up by hard-working entrepreneurs, the Duchy receives huge tax breaks on corporation tax and capital gains tax. Estimates put the total savings at around £20m over the last ten years.

Republic chair Stephen Haseler said today, "Quite apart from the dubious claim the royal family has to the Duchy's land, it is quite wrong for Prince Charles to take the tax payer for a ride like this. “As someone who considers himself well-fitted to become our country's Head of State he should be setting an example and paying the same taxes paid by all the hard working people of Britain." Haseler went on, "Republic is calling on the forthcoming House of Commons Public Accounts Committee enquiry to start a public debate on the sort of head of state this country deserves. An accountable, democratic head of state would never receive such undeserved tax breaks from those he is supposed to represent."

www.republic.org.uk

quote:

Originally posted by Martin D:
"...An accountable, democratic head of state would never receive such undeserved tax breaks from those he is supposed to represent."

www.republic.org.uk

There seems to be a general assumption: "Democracy good - more democracy better". I don't agree with it.

The country is run by an elected House of Commons. We also have elected local government. Why should the second chamber and the 'head of state' also be elected?

Don't we have enough of politicians ruling by soundbite and enacting the policies that they feel will most likely see them re-elected rather than those that they feel are best for the country?

The royal family are not ideal but at least, unlike politicians, they've never had to strive for either money or power.

Regards
Steve M

PS: Apart from the tabloid tittle-tattle, do people actually know much about Camilla?

PPS: I'm not making a case for or against the tax breaks given to the Duchy of Cornwall. However, to put it into perspective, the £20M over the last ten years that was quoted works out at approximately 10p per household per year.

quote:

To be fair, he never asked to be born a royal.

Poor Charlie.

SteveM-
What I don't understand is how your fine country NEEDS the royals...
"More Democracy" doesn't have to mean more politicians (and a "back-up govenment" headed by an "unwilling" heir).
Now the P of W can be the royal tampon if he likes. Far be it from me to deny someone happiness if they can achieve it. I just don't understand why you fine folks would continue to fund this institution.
Wake up and smell the tax revenue:
Even George W. Bush pays taxes!!!
You can argue that he approves his own tax cuts, but he does pay them AND his return is public knowledge.
David

The royal family are not ideal but at least, unlike politicians, they've never had to strive for either money or power.

Regards
Steve M

Steve you'r quite correct regarding money etc. but there is only one problem with your statment and that is , it's my money non of the royals have ever earned a penny, their accumilated wealth has been derived historically by theft, and not by how many shifts they have done down ASDA OR MARKS.
oldie.

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:
What I don't understand is how your fine country NEEDS the royals...

David,

I believe that the Queen does have a constitutional role, although I'm a bit hazy on the details. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this constitutional stuff would be able to comment.

The Queen and the Lords are supposed to be some sort of 'check' on the House of Commons. However, Blair overruled the House of Lords when he couldn't get his anti-hunting legislation through and, whatever the pros or cons of that particular issue, that was a no-no to me.

I don't believe that the Queen has ever publically expressed an opinion on any political issue, although I suspect that she'd be listened to if she ever did.

Regards
Steve

PS: The Queen does now pay taxes on her earnings although, unlike your Pressy, she doesn't get to decide the rate herself.

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
to put it into perspective, the £20M over the last ten years that was quoted works out at approximately 10p per household per year.

To put it in to perspective, why should he, by accident of birth, have that money, and not you or I or anyone else?

How anyone can support this unjust arrangement is beyond me.

We need an elected upper house, preferably by PR.



Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by oldie:
... none of the royals have ever earned a penny, their accumilated wealth has been derived historically by theft, and not by how many shifts they have done down ASDA OR MARKS.

oldie,

By most definitions, those Royals that are paid by the country do work, although not at Asda.

Anyway, isn't all private property theft? I believe that we do have the right to collect dead wood from their land.

Warm regards
Steve M

PS: Nice to see you back here.

It would have saved the taxpayer if we hadn't had a string of divorces in that disfunctional family. The cause?:
Charles wasn't allowed to marry Camilla in the first place, so was set up by arrangement to marry Diana.
Andrew wanted to marry Koo Stark, but she wasn't suitable and so again was forced into something acceptable by arrangement.
If they were allowed to marry who they wanted in the first place, not only would they have had a more successful relationship, but would have had the benefit of a insight into real life, in which case we might have had someone we could have respected.
If the monachy is to survive, they need to become more like real people and should be able to live their lives as they see fit. Although I can't stand Charles, I can't blame him for this whole episode.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
We need an elected upper house, preferably by PR.

Absolutely. The more politicians the better.

Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
The Queen and the Lords are supposed to be some sort of 'check' on the House of Commons. However, Blair overruled the House of Lords when he couldn't get his anti-hunting legislation through and, whatever the pros or cons of that particular issue, that was a no-no to me.

The Tory majority in the lords tries to spoil an elected left-wing commons whenever it can. When we have a Tory government, bills are passed with little 'checking'. That's why Blair had no choice. The hunting bill turned into a class bill - the lords were trying to protect themselves and punish the upstart labour prime minister who dared to try and remove privilege.

quote:

I don't believe that the Queen has ever public ally expressed an opinion on any political issue, although I suspect that she'd be listened to if she ever did.

Her son, though, often does. he has a free political platform to express his views in public and no-one can cross-question him about them.

I'm astonished that any of you think this is a tenable situation.

Stephen

I'm a bit hazy on the details of the royal's relationship to government as well, most likely far more hazy than yours.
If the Queen and Lords are a "check" on the elected House of Commons, that seems a conflict of interest for the people as they can run rough-shod over the will and best interest of the people. What are they "checking"?
Isn't that how the family got in power in the first place?
On the other hand, if the Queen never even expresses an opinion, then what good is that?
I had the good fortune of visiting the UK in 1999 and did some of the tourist things such as Windsor Castle etc. I was completely floored at the display of wealth at the castle and I'm certain that was a tiny fraction of what the royals hold.
How does tying up all that wealth benefit the people?
How is it that they are somehow above all the other people in their country and rules don't apply at all? At least in the US the rules apply to everyone and breaking them is illegal (whether or not you're caught or prosecuted is another matter).
Well, anyway, happy day for Charlie. At least they're too old to be having any more children. You’ll have a new generation of pampered and clueless people to support soon enough.
David

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
We need an elected upper house, preferably by PR.

Absolutely. The more politicians the better.

Steve M

It's better than having people put there by accident of birth or favour.

Democracy isn't perfect - we generally get the politicians we deserve. But you advocate not having it because the people who attain office aren't perfect?

Stephen